Derived Environment Effects and Consistency of Exponence

In this article, I defend the assumption that the generator function Gen of Optimality Theory should be restricted by a principle called Consistency of Exponence and I show how this assumption helps us understand so-called Derived Environment Effects.1 Consistency of Exponence was introduced almost in some of the earliest work on Optimality Theory (McCarthy & Prince, 1993, 1994) as a reasonable restriction on the way the phonology works, and in particular on the way it interacts with the lexical specification of morphemes.2 Over the course of the past 15 years, very few explicit arguments have been provided against it — those that have will be discussed in section 1.3 — and we will show in section 1.2 that several well-known families of constraints are dependent on it. Nevertheless, the principle never received the attention it deserved. Here is the original definition:

[1]  P. Kiparsky Opacity and cyclicity , 2000 .

[2]  Vowel Harmony: An Account in Terms of Government and Optimality , 2000 .

[3]  Laura Benua,et al.  Transderivational Identity: Phonological Relations Between Words , 2008 .

[4]  Arto Anttila Derived Environment Effects in Colloquial Helsinki Finnish , 2008 .

[5]  Jennifer L. Smith Lexical Category and Phonological Contrast , 2001 .

[6]  J. Padgett,et al.  Stricture in Feature Geometry , 1995 .

[7]  Charles W. Kisseberth,et al.  Topics in phonological theory , 1977 .

[8]  Gregory K. Iverson POST) LEXICAL RULE APPLICATION , 1993 .

[9]  Alan S. Prince,et al.  Faithfulness and reduplicative identity , 1995 .

[10]  Geert Booij,et al.  Syllable structure assignment in Polish , 1990 .

[11]  Anna Łubowicz,et al.  Derived environment effects in Optimality Theory , 2002 .

[12]  Geert Booij,et al.  Morphological and prosodic domains in Lexical Phonology , 1984, Phonology Yearbook.

[13]  Anna Lubowicz,et al.  Contrast preservation in phonological mappings , 2003 .

[14]  Alan Prince,et al.  Prosodic morphology : constraint interaction and satisfaction , 1993 .

[15]  Anna Łubowicz,et al.  Locality of Conjunction , 2005 .

[16]  Luigi Burzio Output-to-Output Faithfulness in Phonology: The Italian Connection , 2003 .

[17]  Goldrick Matthew,et al.  Turbid Output Representations and the Unity of Opacity , 2000 .

[18]  Christopher Potts,et al.  Model theory and the content of OT constraints , 2002, Phonology.

[19]  Alan S. Prince,et al.  The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology , 1994 .

[20]  John J. McCarthy,et al.  Sympathy and phonological opacity , 1999, Phonology.

[21]  Jerzy Rubach,et al.  Cyclic and Lexical Phonology: The Structure of Polish , 1984 .

[22]  R. Noske A prosodic contrast between Northern and Southern Dutch: a result of a Flemish-French sprachbund , 2006 .

[23]  Patrik Bye,et al.  Cryptosonorants and the misapplication of voicing assimilation in Biaspectual Phonology , 2005 .

[24]  Sang Jik Rhee,et al.  Empty nuclei in Korean , 2002 .

[25]  A. Anttila Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations , 2002 .

[26]  Jerzy Rubach,et al.  Duke-of-York Derivations in Polish , 2003, Linguistic Inquiry.

[27]  Rachel Walker,et al.  A Ternary Model of Morphology-Phonology Correspondence , 2004 .

[28]  Martin Krämer Contiguity and non-derived environment blocking of s-voicing in Lombardian and Tuscan Italian , 2005 .

[29]  B. Hayes Locality of Conjunction , 2005 .

[30]  東京言語研究所,et al.  Three dimensions of linguistic theory , 1973 .

[31]  Luigi Burzio Principles of English Stress , 1995 .

[32]  P. Smolensky,et al.  Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar , 2004 .

[33]  J. McCarthy Comparative markedness , 2003 .

[34]  M. F.,et al.  Bibliography , 1985, Experimental Gerontology.

[35]  Chris Golston,et al.  Syntax outranks phonology: evidence from Ancient Greek , 1995, Phonology.